But in this case, I must agree with Dr Murphy over Mr (?) Stolyarov. Two specific quotes are salient:

Like Dr. Meyer, I base my argument on the non-aggression principle and the recognition that people do not have the right to involuntarily expose others to deadly diseases that, with continued vaccination, could become eradicated or remain at minimal levels.

if you replace “deadly diseases” with “hate speech” and “vaccination” with “indoctrination”, you have a fairly common left-wing argument. I believe strongly in the value of a herd immunity, and would prefer that everyone (or as close as possible) were vaccinated. But the precedent is too easy – once you establish a libertarian position that a lack of action is so dangerous that it justifies curtailing liberty to force action – you open the door to lots of clever people making that same argument about anything they care to. They’ll make those arguments anyways, of course, but at least now we have the consistency of our position to use as a base for resistance. Once we weaken that with compromise, it just becomes a matter of time before it starts devolving into “X is just as important as vaccination” and then you’re arguing about X, rather than arguing about force.

Only medical doctors who recognize the benefits and efficacy of vaccination in the majority of instances, but consider the risk of adverse side effects to be too great for a particular patient, should be able to provide exemptions to vaccination.

This is another classic progressive trope – “only the experts who think the correct way about this issue shall be given the authority to deviate from the mandate”. Who decides which experts are guilty of vaccine thoughtcrime, and which ones aren’t? Who decides which people sit on the vaccination thoughtcrime doctor evaluation panel, and who doesn’t? And so on – the standard problems with thoughtcrime punishment strategies. It’s ultimately too fragile, subject to the whims and fancies of a small number of people, who are all vulnerable to their own biases and agendas. It doesn’t make our decisions better, all it really does is establish another precedent that panels of experts should be making decisions instead of individuals.

He then goes on to discuss tactics – his proposed approach of denying unvaccinated kids access to public school is not completely unreasonable. I’d personally rather have all the unvaccinated kids shipped to the same school, where they can be kept isolated from the rest of the school-age population. Knowing that their kids were going to be in a cluster of high vulnerability should scare the dickens out of an even slightly self aware parent, and there’s really no hope for the ones that aren’t self aware.

The rest of his article is handwaving which I don’t have the patience with which to respond here.